working oneself up into a heat

[Mark Sylvester <msylvest@spin.it>]

It seems that until this list gets fixed one should start with an irrelevant
paragraph in the expectation that it swill be swallowed by the forces of
entropy. Isn't this what used to happen to the ends of messages in the early
days of e-mail? I read once somewhere that this is where the sig-file
tradition came from.

Anyway...

> And in response to a query in another post, the "Q" in T#1 is an action --
> something that is done *to* the system and deltsU is what is inside the
> system ie the response by the system to the action of "Q" (and "W" for that
> matter, but let's stick with "Q" for the nonce.)  Now what shall we call "Q"
> and what to call "deltaU".  It is surely not helpful to call them the same
> thing!!! 
>
> Jim.Green@Snow.edu                                      

Exactly.

Q is work on a microscopic, entropy-related scale. W is macroscopic work.
Both are measures of energy transfer, and there are good reasons for
distinguishing between them.

I've come across the terms "thermal energy" and even just "energy" used
where Q is intended. This just made things worse.

Then there are the numerous textbooks which use "delta Q" and "delta W",
implying that these are increments in some absolute quantity.

The only problem I have with Jim Green's paragraph is a lack of vocabulary.
OK, so Q and W are actions, but we express them numerically. They are
amounts. Amounts of what? Amounts of energy, apparently. Energy transferred
by working microscopically, and energy transferred by working
macroscopically. Or energy transferred by heating and energy transferred by
working. 

But is there no possibility of single-word lables for these terms?

Mark.

Mark Sylvester
UWCAd, Duino, Trieste, Italy.